Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The gig is LONG up Rose, dont distract people any more and leave us get on with the work we are doing.
i am sure you will be banned if you dont take this hint.

Ashtweth Palise
Panacea founder

WHAT GIG?  WHAT ARE YOU HINTING HERE ASHTWETH?  IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY - THEN SAY IT.

And I am entirely satisfied that you would LOVE to have me banned.  God knows how hard you all worked on this at EF.COM.  And it seems that you've perfected the recipe.  All you do is wait for the moment - FLAME the threads - not even articulate sensible posts - then then sit back like a pack of carion and pick the bones clean.

History will speak very loudly here Ashtweth - that I promise you.  And I have every reason to believe that you will regret this extraordinary attack you head against us poor inventors.  Especially those of us who are female.  LOL

R

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Jesus dont try and understand the issue, if you cannot now, it has been spelled out that things she did were deliberate and made no sense, Glen has spelled it out in full color, 6 people have all testified to it, i am one of them, if you dont get it, dont comment, dont tell us to treat people normal, we do , and have tried numerous times to help Rose, thats the point of why we are pointing this all out. Every one who posted and didn't read made  a fool out of themselves. Right in front of the people who contribute, at least we got that out of this time wasting mess.

Ashtweth

I missed this one.  There are NOT 6 OF YOU.  There is you - Glen and Harvey.  Steve has NOTHING to say either in defense or against me.  Effectively there are 3 of you and all three are anxious to prevent this technology rather than advance it.  I need to know - we ALL need to know why?  No-one comes out and says it but the fact is that you all HINT.  You are trying to pretend that this is Glen's technology.

The truth of the matter is that we will be downloading data and data and more data that will show how easy this is to replicate.  We've already achieved amazing results on that almost 'STANDARD' immersion heater.  And that's not even close to our best.  That's why it has now become critical to flame this thread and GET RID OF me - come hell or high water. 

Worst still, for you all, is the knowledge that the thesis is now being seriously considered.  And that by academics.  Now tell me Ashtweth.  Why this frantic need to flame this thread?  Why is it now IMPERATIVE that you, Glen, Harvey, TK, Truthbeknown - and all of you? why NOW?  Why suddenly has it become a do or die that you get rid of me?  I think we'd all like to know.  I think we all need to understand what it is about this technology that is DIFFERENT in Glen's replication to those multiple replications that we have/will achieve?  Harvey has mouthed sundry platitudes about the need for a replication to reach COP>17.  Strangely Glen exceeded this.  So did we.  The only person who got hooked on that number was Aaron- and that, because it was the conservative evaluation over an experiment conducted over time.  And the time was only determined by the time it took the control to run FLAT.   Indeed there were multiple moments on all experiments where the evidence is that the battery gets recharged.  That cannot happen at COP>17. 

The other distinction is the difference in the resistors.  I will show you this same effect on resistors that are both standard and non-standard.  The only difference is their point of resonance.  Nothing exotic Ashtweth.  It's absolutely - as day follows night - an easy thing to get.  If you never managed a replication - then I'm not sure why.  We did it on our first test at campus.  I would have downloaded it if I had the right scopemeter to do so.

Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

What really puzzles me is that you see this imperative requirement to divorce these results from my efforts or thesis.  I wonder if it is because you've INVESTED in Steorne's work and would rather prefer to advance that.  Like you've got a right to rewrite history as per Ashtweth's preference.  And this because you understand so much about physics.  Or is it because it's easier to hit at old women than it is to band together as 'men' as you seem to see it.  In truth, MEN don't behave as you do.  MEN are actually honourable and don't spend their time trying to gag women.  MEN are prepared to acknowledge that women can make as strong a contribution to science as men - because they can also think - and create - and analyse.  And MEN would not, as a rule, have difficulty in acknowledging talent - be it among men or women.

You have all gone to some considerable trouble to try and paint me stupid.  Feel free.  Those MEN out there who matter are not so inclined to share your opinion.  And the THREE of you are absolutely NOT representative of MEN.  MEN absolutely DO NOT BASH OLD WOMEN for doing nothing more nor less than standing up for the truth.

Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And in conclusion - let me assure you.  If I am BANNED then not one but TWO forums that are both apparently dedicated to Free Energy and the general advancement of critically required technology - will be sorely embarrassed when we make FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE of all those results.  What then Ashtweth?  Will you be running in the front of that all that inevitable interest trying to tell everyone that this is NOT our work but GLEN'S?  LOL.  Or will you be saying that 6 OF US HAVE FOUND HER TO BE A LIAR AND THAT THIS IS NOT HER WORK.  SHE'S INCAPABLE OF IT? 

I assure you that I have many, many, many more than 6 people who will attest to this work preceding this parody of a replication.  And in as much as they are accredited - then I think we will ALL be able to rest on those advices.  And if you THINK I'm a liar - then I really don't mind.  And I'm not sure anymore how committed Panacea is to free energy when you go to such lengths to try and get me banned.  I have ALWAYS been committed to the advancement of clean green.

It seems that you and Glen and Harvey say exactly what you like about me.  But I MAY NOT DEFEND MYSELF nor return the attack.  NOR is there protection on this forum any longer.  It seems that I must have no means of countering your ALLEGATIONS.

Rosemary

[fuzzytomcat]

Howdy reading members and guests,

Another quote from Rosemary "in her own words" ......


http://www.energeticforum.com/61506-post942.html   July 20,2009    Post #942

witsend 

hi Joit. Love the comments. What scares me is not the academics - because at least they sincerely believe in their science - with good reason. Its the detractors on other forums that are worrying. The lengths they go to to discredit the person and the claim - both.

Have you ever looked through the OU.Com thread on this? It beggars belief. Malice hardly describes it. And the amount of money that is spent on displaying tests and parading brand new state of the art equipment that is never effectively used. Weeks go by without a single test result - just promises of this. Yet we are constantly advised that the claim is wrong. Has it ever occurred to anyone that - to this day - no single power measurement has been made on the circuitry? No test has been run to duration of a battery capacity. Brand new state of the art equipment is constantly on display but never are its full functions referenced. Small irrelevant points become critical evidence of a lack of proof and are championed with an unabashed repetitiveness that is boringly persistent but brutally destructive. But no actual proof is offered.

What is frightening is that anyone who questions a result is actually verbally menaced. One post we've got on record is of Ramset's answer to a challenging observation by one of their contributors. He actually wrote to the effect that 'owlsley needs to kiwl the kitty'. TK is on record as openly saying that I am a mendacious prevaricator. Apparently all aspects of our test are some sort of public con, apparently aimed at I don't know what? Surely my stated intention not to capitalise on the device must bring my motives to question. Clearly, if I am perpetuating a con - then it's not for purposes of defrauding the public. Why would I go to such lengths to expose a small little effect, possibly the smallest of any OU claim ever offered up for consideration? What is it that deserves their heavy handed attempts at wit or sarcasm, done with the orchestrated approval of other 'so called' scientists sharing that thread. TK only needs to make a post for immediate endorsement by other contributors who also then mock my apparent lack of sanity, judgement, intelligence, schooling, beliefs, ideas, lack of expertise - name it's all there. All for public consumption. All unchallenged. And all such detractors always out of reach, always carefully hiding behind their assumed identities. They flirt with their rights to freedom of expression that under normal circumstances, and under ordinary civil law would be actionable. And all this, clearly with Stephan's endorsement. Never do they give us their names. Never do they disclose their identities. Never are we in a position to find out their actual motives.

To compound my concerns is the fact that the entire forum was promoted by Stephan, with, one would assume, the intention of promoting the study of free energy. I can no longer access OU.Com. Was he responsible for my not gaining access? And if so, at whose asking and why? Public - to everyone but me? Then too it seems that my emails are being read. How does that happen? Are my phone calls also being monitored?

It's all very puzzling. All I want is an answer to the question posed in my paper - ideally from academics who can validate the result or not and comment accordingly. If they won't hear me then maybe they'll listen to you guys? It's quite important really. But its only a small question. In the light of the attack, however, I'm realising how significant it is. Certainly it seems to be sufficiently significant for them to do everything in their power to destroy my reputation and my work - both. Why is it that important? I can only propose it's because we're near the truth and this, for some reason, needs to be discredited. And again. Why?

And all this, clearly with Stephan's endorsement. Never do they give us their names. Never do they disclose their identities. Never are we in a position to find out their actual motives.


To compound my concerns is the fact that the entire forum was promoted by Stephan, with, one would assume, the intention of promoting the study of free energy. I can no longer access OU.Com. Was he responsible for my not gaining access? And if so, at whose asking and why? Public - to everyone but me? Then too it seems that my emails are being read. How does that happen? Are my phone calls also being monitored?


**********************************************************************************************


I'll let Stefan handle the last past flaming posts starting at Post #803 from Rosemary about her recent banning and moderator status here at Over Unity Forum and her unfounded unproved allagations again against everyone in the world but her.  The truth hurts ......


Regards,
Glen


.